5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1946 respectively and live in Helsinki. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant the editor-in-chief of the third applicant, a publishing company.
6.  On 7 January 1997 they published in the nationwide magazine Hymy an article about A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend. The article, which was entitled “A.'s long-lasting relationship with his female friend and booze”, concerned an incident that had taken place at A.'s home on 4 December 1996. A. together with B. had entered late at night his home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. The article also concerned A.'s drinking problem and B.'s background and identity: her name and age were mentioned in the article as well as the fact that she was the female friend who had been involved in the incident at A.'s home. Moreover, her workplace, the location of her home and her family relationships were mentioned in the article. The caption of the article stated that “Hymy reveals now the identity of A.'s long standing female friend and tells her background...”.
7.  Due to the incident on 4 December 1996, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.
8.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident on 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. On 24 March 1997 they made such a request with respect to the applicants, claiming that the article published in Hymy had invaded B.'s privacy as her workplace and name had been revealed. In regard to all but one of these requests no charges were brought. On 8 September 1998 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the applicants as, according to him, there was no indication of any crime.
9.  On 25 October 1998 B. complained to the Prosecutor-General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, högsta åklagaren) about the decisions not to prosecute and asked him to reconsider the cases. On 5 October 1999, after having considered the charges, the Deputy Prosecutor-General requested the public prosecutor to bring charges, inter alia, against the first and second applicants. He reasoned his decision by, inter alia, stating that some of the facts revealed in the article fell within the scope of private life and that no derogation could be made in this case as B. was not a public figure.
10.  On 15 November 1999 the public prosecutor, by order of the Deputy Prosecutor-General, brought charges under Chapter 27, section 3 (a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code against the first and second applicants. At the same time charges were brought also against other journalists and editors-in-chief of other magazines to be examined in the same proceedings. These journalists and editors-in-chief have lodged a separate appeal with the Court (see Flinkkilä and others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, 6 April 2010).
11.  B. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor. On 4 January and 10 November 2000 she pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges.
12.  Following an oral hearing on 8 December 2000, the Espoo District Court rejected all the charges on 15 December 2000, finding that the information concerning B.'s private life in the article in question could not as such be conducive to causing her particular suffering, except for the information concerning her relationship with A. However, since the incident of 4 December 1996 B. must have understood that she could no longer seek protection on this ground. Thus, the first and second applicants had not been under a duty to assess whether revealing B.'s identity could have caused her suffering. Furthermore, it had not been proved that the applicants had intended to invade B.'s privacy. Accordingly, all the compensation claims against the applicants were also rejected.
13.  By letters dated 10 and 14 January 2001, the public prosecutor and B. appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court, reiterating the charges and the compensation claims. Moreover, on 17 September 2002 B. requested that the case file be declared secret for at least ten years from the date of the judgment.
14.  In its judgment of 15 May 2003, the Appeal Court first decided to declare all parts of the case file secret for ten years except for the applicable legal provisions and the conclusions contained in the judgment. Additionally, B.'s identity was not to be revealed in the public parts of the judgment. The court found that the matter was very sensitive, that it fell within the scope of private life, and that the secrecy accorded did not violate Articles 6 or 10 of the Convention. As to the merits of the case the court, without holding an oral hearing, quashed the District Court's judgment and sentenced the first and second applicants to pay twenty day-fines, amounting to 1,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 360 respectively, for invasion of private life. Moreover, they were jointly and severally with the applicant company ordered to pay B. EUR 5,000 plus interest for non-pecuniary damage as well as her costs and expenses. The applicants paid in total EUR 12,403.64 in fines and compensation.
15.  The Appeal Court found that the facts mentioned in the article were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that the national television broadcast on 23 January 1997, in which B.'s name had been mentioned twice in the context of an interview with A., had invaded her private life. B. did not hold such a position in society that the exception in Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code was applicable. The fact that she was a friend of such a person and that she had been involved in the incident that subsequently led to the dismissal of A. from his post as National Conciliator did not justify revealing her identity. The fact that B.'s identity as A.'s friend had previously been revealed in the media did not justify the subsequent invasion of her private life. The Penal Code provision in question did not require that intent be shown but it was sufficient that the dissemination of information about the private life of a person was capable of causing him or her damage or suffering. The applicants, therefore, had had no right to reveal facts relating to B.'s private life.
16.  By letter dated 9 July 2003 the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming, inter alia, that the provision of the Penal Code in question did not define with sufficient clarity which acts fell within its scope. No intent had been shown, nor was the Appeal Court judgment adequately reasoned in this respect. Moreover, they claimed that, in declaring that the case file should remain secret, the Appeal Court had not given reasons which would constitute sufficient grounds for the measure. Finally, the Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could be restricted in this case.
17.  On 20 January 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.